Does the epistle to the Galatians teach that Christians shouldn’t keep the Law?

As more and more Christians come to see the beauty and validity of the commandments of the Torah (such as the Sabbath and the kosher laws), many well-meaning and concerned brothers and sisters point us to the Apostle Paul’s epistle to the Galatians. Their intention is to remind us that in that epistle, the Apostle Paul taught against Gentile Believers keeping the Law.

But does the epistle to the Galatians really teach against Gentile Believers keeping the Torah? Is the Apostle Paul able to overthrow the clear words of both the Hebrew Scriptures and of the Messiah Himself, which instructs us to obey the Torah, and lead Gentiles away from God’s commandments? From a historical Christian perspective, the answers to both of these questions are a resounding “yes!” The long-standing interpretation of Galatians is that Paul was teaching against Gentile Believers keeping the Torah.

Is this interpretation, however, consistent with the rest of the Bible and even the Apostle Paul’s own writings? Now, I’m not claiming to have THE interpretation of Galatians, nor am I claiming to be able to properly interpret every single verse, though I have attempted to do so and you can read my thoughts on MessianicNiagara.com in the Studies section. This blog entry is a summation of the introduction to those notes.

So, the objection we are going to seek to answer is:

Christians shouldn’t keep the Torah because, in Galatians, Paul taught us not to.

The first thing we need to do to properly interpret this epistle is determine the historical context. Not only that, we need to review how the Bible presents the Apostle Paul and let that perspective be consistent with our interpretation of Galatians.

Though it’s my opinion that Galatians was written before the events of Acts 15, I believe that Acts 15 was dealing with the exact same issue that Paul was in Galatians. The issue at hand in Acts 15 was given to us in the first verse:

Some men came down from Judea and began teaching the brethren, “Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved.”

Here we see that some men from Judea came down to Antioch and began teaching the Gentile Believers that unless they were circumcised they could not be saved. Now, words only have meaning within their historical and cultural context. That is, unless you are aware of how a person is using their words, you might not know what they are referring to. In this case, in their first century, Jewish context what did the words “circumcised,” “custom of Moses” and “saved” refer to? To understand these words, we should quickly summarize what at least some in the Jewish communities believed in regards to salvation.

For centuries, Christian commentators assumed that the Jewish communities of the first century believed that salvation was based upon obedience to the Torah but one is hard pressed to come up with this by reading any Jewish literature of the first century. The Apostolic Scriptures (NT), the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Talmud (which contains theology that was no doubt espoused in the first century) give us no clear indication that there was a unified idea on how one could be assured of eternal life. Instead, much of the ideology that was developed regarding salvation instead started with the premise that God had graciously chosen Israel to be His covenant nation. Therefore, it was assumed that those who were a part of Israel would be saved. This line of thinking is actually correct! What do I mean by that?

I mean that if one honestly assesses the Scriptures, you will notice that God has only made covenant promises to the nation Israel. Even the New Covenant, which promises the forgiveness of sins, is made with the House of Judah and Israel (cf. Jeremiah 31:31-34). There is no people group outside of Israel that has any assurance of salvation. The question, would then be, who makes up the covenant people of Israel?

No doubt each group within the Jewish communities of the first century had their own ideas on who constituted the people of Israel and therefore those who would be assured of a place in the World to Come. The Essenes, that is the Dead Sea Scroll community, had one set of criteria that one would have to meet in order to be counted among the saved. Among the Pharisees, there were probably differing theories. The Saducees, well, they didn’t even believe in the World to Come, so to them it was irrelevant.

Nevertheless, there is one aspect that probably all of the different sects agreed upon: Gentiles, that is, those who were not ethnically a part of Israel, were excluded from God’s covenants and therefore had no assurance of salvation. This sentiment is represented in Paul’s words in Ephesians 2:12. Speaking to the Gentile Believers, Paul says:

Remember that you were at that time separate from Messiah, excluded from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world.

To the modern Christian mindset, what does being excluded from the commonwealth of Israel and being strangers to the covenants of promise have to do with our salvation? Probably nothing. But in the first century Jewish context, if one was not a part of Israel or a participant in the covenants God made with Israel, you were not saved.

So, going back to Acts 15:1, we can begin to understand what the men from Judea were referring to when they said: “Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved.” I would like to note that I just said “begin to understand” because even though we now understand that the general idea in the first century was that salvation was based upon being a part of Israel, that still doesn’t explain what circumcision had to do with it. To answer, we’ll have to answer these questions: what was the criteria one had to meet in order to be counted among the people of Israel? And what did the word “circumcision” refer to?

To put it simply, if you were born ethnically Jewish, you had an automatic ticket to eternal life. Now, this does not mean that there weren’t many opinions as to what the Jewish person had to do to maintain this status but, generally speaking, as long as the Jewish person did not break the Sabbath and other commandments that carried the death penalty, they could be assured that they were a part of God’s covenant people and had a place in the World to Come.

What about a Gentile though? How could a Gentile become a part of the covenant people? Interestingly, the Torah itself gives no indication that a Gentile would have to “do” anything. The Torah assumes that there are “strangers” (that is, people who aren’t physically Israel) among God’s people who would have a desire to worship God. This is why you’ll see time after time that when God commands the people of Israel to do something there is also the mention of the stranger. For example, the Sabbath commandment; the Sabbath is to be kept by not only native born Israelites but also the sojourner. As it says:

But the seventh day is a sabbath of the LORD your God; in it you shall not do any work, you or your son or your daughter, your male or your female servant or your cattle or your sojourner who stays with you. (Exodus 20:10)

In the days of the Torah, the sojourner (or stranger or alien, depending on your Bible translation) was simply a non-Israelite who lived among the people of Israel, had a desire to worship the one true God and did so by the standards given by God to His people Israel. In Paul’s day, however, the status of the stranger became a little more convoluted. It would appear that in the first century there were two classes of Gentiles within the synagogue communities: the proselyte, that is, a Gentile who had formally converted to Judaism and the God-fearer, that is, a Gentile who worshipped in synagogue context but had no formally converted to Judaism. The conversion process was made up of three particular elements:

 Circumcision (for males)
 Ritual immersion (baptism)
 If possible, making a sacrifice at the Temple in Jerusalem

Upon completion, the Gentile would be granted legal status as a Jew and would thus be reckoned a legitimate part of Israel. The new convert would receive all the privileges of the native-born and also be legally liable for breaking any of the commandments of the Torah. The God-fearer, on the other hand, was kind of in no-man’s land, for while they weren’t considered outright pagans, they certainly were not considered to be a legitimate part of the people of Israel (since they had not gone through the conversion ritual).

So, how can we apply this information to our study of Acts 15:1? Since circumcision was the primary component of the conversion ritual and since the men from Judea stated that this is was a “custom” (marking it as something not directly derived from the written Torah), it seems most likely that they were making the argument that unless the Gentile Believers became legal converts (proselytes) they could not be counted among the people of Israel and thus they would not be saved.

With this interpretation, a paraphrase of Acts 15:1 would be:

Some men came down from Judea and began teaching the Gentile Believers, “Unless you legally convert to become a proselyte, according to our legal standard you cannot be saved.” (my paraphrase of Acts 15:1)

With this context in mind, we can see that the Gentile’s relationship to the Torah is not necessarily in view here but instead the question was regarding whether a Gentile had to legally become Jewish in order to be counted as a legitimate part of God’s people. The subsequent ruling of Peter and James in Acts 15 and all of Paul’s letter to Galatians indicates and proves decisively that a Gentile does not have to submit to any legal conversion in order to be considered a legitimate part of Israel but as Paul said in Ephesians, Gentiles, through the blood of Messiah, are “brought near” and are “fellow-citizens, “fellow-heirs, “fellow-members of the body” and “fellow partakers of the promise.”

So, again, the Gentile Believer’s relationship to the Torah is not necessarily in view in Acts 15 or in the Epistle to the Galatians. Regardless, I do not believe that any of the Apostles had a negative view of the Torah. For our purposes, let us examine some key texts to see how the Apostle Paul viewed the Torah.

“I am a Jew, born in Tarsus of Cilicia, but brought up in this city, educated under Gamaliel, strictly according to the Torah of our fathers, being zealous for God just as you all are today.” (Acts 22:3)

Paul, in his own personal testimony, declared himself to be a Jew, a Jew with an education! He was educated under the leading sage of his day, Rabbi Gamaliel I, the grandson of Rabbi Hillel. Paul was educated according to the Torah and was zealous for God, just like his Jewish contemporaries. Paul at no point repudiates his Torah education. Though he realized that it afforded him nothing in terms of salvation (cf. Phillipians 3:4-7), he also regarded Jewish Torah education as being advantageous (Romans 3:1-2).

Now when they had traveled through Amphipolis and Apollonia, they came to Thessalonica, where there was a synagogue of the Jews. And according to Paul’s custom, he went to them, and for three Sabbaths reasoned with them from the Scriptures, (Acts 17:1-2)

But going on from Perga, they arrived at Pisidian Antioch, and on the Sabbath day they went into the synagogue and sat down. After the reading of the Torah and the Prophets the synagogue officials sent to them, saying, “Brethren, if you have any word of exhortation for the people, say it.” (Acts 13:14-15)

The book of Acts explicitly tells us that it was Paul’s custom, just as it was his Master Yeshua’s custom, to attend the synagogue on the Sabbath. Notice that Luke (the writer of Acts) does not even call in to question the validity of the Sabbath but simply notes Paul’s custom of attending the synagogue and reasoning from the Scriptures that Yeshua was indeed the promised Messiah. At this point in history, believers were not meeting on Sundays but instead congregated in synagogues along with the rest of the Jewish community on the Sabbath (cf. Acts 15:21).

For Paul had decided to sail past Ephesus so that he would not have to spend time in Asia; for he was hurrying to be in Jerusalem, if possible, on the day of Pentecost. (Acts 20:16)

Additionally, Paul continued to celebrate God’s Appointed Times. Here in Acts 20:16, we see that Paul was trying to make it to Jerusalem for one of the three pilgrimage festivals, Pentecost (Shavu’ot, the Feast of Weeks). So, not only did Paul want to keep the Torah festival of Pentecost but he also wanted to celebrate it in Jerusalem, just as the Torah commands.

Clean out the old leaven so that you may be a new lump, just as you are in fact unleavened. For Messiah our Passover also has been sacrificed. Therefore let us celebrate the feast, not with old leaven, nor with the leaven of malice and wickedness, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth. (1 Corinthians 5:7-8)

Paul encourages the Believers in Corinth to keep the feast of Passover. Paul uses leaven metaphorically to teach the Believers about sin, a metaphor that would be lost on them if they had not studied and lived out the Torah laws concerned leaven during the Feast of Unleavened Bread.

“But this I admit to you, that according to the Way which they call a sect I do serve the God of our fathers, believing everything that is in accordance with the Torah and that is written in the Prophets.” (Acts 24:14)

Notice the present tense, Paul served God, believing everything that is in accordance with the Torah and the Prophets. This does not sound like the testimony of a man who had abandoned the religious life of the Hebrew Scriptures. In fact, it was the Tanakh, the Hebrew Scriptures which Paul had in mind when he wrote:

All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work. (2 Timothy 3:16-17)

If the Torah was done away with or was not applicable to Gentile Believers then this statement, that “all Scripture is profitable for teaching, reproof, correction and training in righteousness” would be false. When Paul said “all Scripture” that surely includes the Torah. Therefore, the Torah is inspired by God, profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction and for training in righteousness. But if this is how Paul viewed the Torah, why is he misunderstood in our day? Well, it wasn’t any better in the first century. Apparently his message that Gentiles need not become legal proselytes was misunderstood to imply that Paul was disregarding the Torah and Jewish law altogether. When Paul reached Jerusalem in Acts 21, he is met by the leader of the Jerusalem community, the brother of Yeshua, Ya’akov, that is, James. It says in Acts 21:20-26:

And when they heard it they began glorifying God; and they said to him, “You see, brother, how many thousands there are among the Jews of those who have believed, and they are all zealous for the Torah; and they have been told about you, that you are teaching all the Jews who are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children nor to walk according to the customs. What, then, is to be done? They will certainly hear that you have come. Therefore do this that we tell you. We have four men who are under a vow; take them and purify yourself along with them, and pay their expenses so that they may shave their heads; and all will know that there is nothing to the things which they have been told about you, but that you yourself also walk orderly, keeping the Torah. (Acts 21:20-26)

If there was ever a time for the other Believers to expose Paul for not being Torah-observant, this was the time. Paul was willing to prove his allegiance to the Torah by paying the expenses — for himself and four other Believers — that accompanied the sacrifices that were to be offered to complete a vow.

Paul obeyed the Torah and expected the readers and hearers of his letters to be Torah-observant as well. Let’s look at several key verses from his letter to the Romans:

For it is not the hearers of the Torah who are just before God, but the doers of the Torah will be justified. (Romans 2:13)

The evidence of a regenerated heart is a life of obedience to the Torah. Those who simply hear the Torah are not those who will be justified, but those who are doers of the Torah will be justified. They will be justified because they are demonstrating in their actions that God had chosen them, redeemed them and gave them the ability, by His Spirit, to live an obedient life.

Do we then nullify the Torah through faith? May it never be! On the contrary, we establish the Torah. (Romans 3:31)

Though the Gospel message makes no distinction between Jews and Gentiles, this reality does not nullify the Torah. On the contrary, as he had already established in Romans 2:13, our faith should establish the Torah.

For the mind set on the flesh is death, but the mind set on the Spirit is life and peace, because the mind set on the flesh is hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the Torah of God, for it is not even able to do so, (Romans 8:6-7)

In fact, Paul characterized the unbeliever as one who is not able to submit to the Torah of God, as opposed to believers who live out the requirement of the Torah because they walk by the Spirit, not by the flesh.

So that the requirement of the Torah might be fulfilled in us, who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit. (Romans 8:4)

Paul’s desire was to keep God’s Torah because he recognized that it is holy, righteous and good, as well as spiritual.

For I joyfully concur with the Torah of God in the inner man, (Romans 7:22)

12So then, the Torah is holy, and the commandment is holy and righteous and good. 14For we know that the Torah is spiritual, but I am of flesh, sold into bondage to sin. (Romans 7:12, 14)

The evidence from the book of Acts and Paul’s own epistles is that he had a very positive view of the Torah. Simple obedience to the commandments of the Torah was never really in view in these arguments but instead it was the Gentile Believer’s relationship to the Torah via their relationship to the people of Israel that was disputed. With these things in mind, let’s see if we can come to a more reasoned understanding of the epistle to the Galatians.

I’ve decided to begin recording some videos answering the common objections I hear when I tell people about the Torah. In this first video, I tackle the objection “We don’t need to keep the Law because we’re saved by Jesus!” I do this by answering two very basic questions: “what is salvation?” and “how were the people before the coming of Jesus saved?”

Part 1 – What is salvation?

Part 2 – How were the people saved before the coming of the Messiah?

If you know me and have talked to me about the Bible then you know that I believe that the whole Bible is authoritative for holy living. In other words, all of God’s commandments in the Torah are still just as authoritative today as they were in Bible times. Some Christians misunderstand and think that this means Believers who are endeavouring to keep the Torah’s commandments are trying to earn their salvation. Recently at work, I’ve been speaking with a woman who is interested in the Torah perspective and has brought up that usually the Torah perspective teachers don’t bring up grace. Additionally, a prominent believing Jewish singer has recently publicly stated that he has left the Messianic movement and even went as far to say that Believers who are trying to keep the Torah might not be saved. His opinions are coming from his reading and misunderstanding of the Apostle Paul’s epistle to the Galatians.

I can’t speak for other Torah submissive Believers; I can only speak for myself. Am I endeavouring to learn and obey Torah to get saved? Am I trying to gain God’s favour by trying to keep the Sabbath? Am I scoring some points with God because I’m trying to keep Kosher? Is there any good work that a person can do to gain merit in God’s eyes?

The reality is that our righteousness is like filthy garments to God. It says in Isaiah:

For all of us have become like one who is unclean, and all our righteous deeds are like a filthy garment; and all of us wither like a leaf, and our iniquities, like the wind, take us away. (Isaiah 64:6)

The Apostle Paul teaches that “all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God”(Romans 3:23). In fact, spiritually speaking, “you were dead in your trespasses and sins”(Ephesians 2:1). There is actually nothing that human beings can do to gain favour with God. When it comes to spiritual matters, we’re as good as dead. So, what’s our hope?

Let me just say, God is completely righteous and perfect in judgement and is not obligated to forgive any of us. God would be completely just in condemning each and every one of us; but this is where God’s grace comes in. To display His grace, God has chosen an elect, in every generation, to be transformed and saved. Paul says in Ephesians:

Blessed be the God and Father of our Master Yeshua the Messiah, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the [heavenlies] in Messiah, just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we would be holy and blameless before Him In love He predestined us to adoption as sons through Yeshua the Messiah to Himself, according to the kind intention of His will, to the praise of the glory of His grace, which He freely bestowed on us in the Beloved. (Ephesians 1:3-6)

We’re saved because God planned that we would be saved. Our salvation has absolutely nothing to do with our will. It was God’s will that we be saved. Paul says in Romans:

So then it does not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy. (Romans 9:16)

It’s because God is merciful and transformed our hearts that we accepted the Good News of the Messiah. It’s not just that God only wanted it to happen; it goes well beyond that. Since we were dead in our sins, there was nothing in ourselves to come to life. God had to be the one to bring us to life. It says in Ephesians:

“…and raised us up with Him, and seated us with Him in the heavenly places in Messiah Yeshua” (Ephesians 2:6)

The question then might be asked: “once saved, is it possible to lose your salvation?” The quick answer to that is: “no.” Salvation was never something we earned; God graciously gave it to us. Therefore, we can’t lose our salvation either. There are no good works we can do to earn salvation and there are no evil works we can do to lose our salvation. Salvation would not be by grace if either of those were true! Paul says:

For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not as a result of works, so that no one may boast. (Ephesians 2:8-9)

Instead, the salvation God gives us is one that is based on full assurance. Our hope is that despite what our sinful nature wants us to do (and, sometimes, inevitably causes us to do) we can be assured that we will have a share in the World to Come. Paul puts it this way:

And we know that God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose. For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brethren; and these whom He predestined, He also called; and these whom He called, He also justified; and these whom He justified, He also glorified. (Romans 8:28-30)

God is there orchestrating every step of our salvation. We were dead in our sins but God brought us to life. He worked out the events of our life in such a way that we heard the Good News of the Messiah and because he had brought us to life, we accepted it. This was because He had already predestined that we would accept it. The purpose in God doing all of this is so that we would become conformed to the image of the Messiah. With the ultimate result being that we will be glorified; that is, the resurrection of our bodies in the World to Come.

What does any of this have to do with keeping the Torah? Well, we don’t keep the Torah to be saved or to maintain our salvation. We keep the Torah because God has saved us and because God is our loving Father and we want to obey Him. Every single time we submit to the commandments of God, we’re telling God that we love Him. We are not doing it to gain His favour because we already have His favour. His favour to us is not a result of anything we’ve done, because we don’t deserve any of it. His favour has been bestowed upon us because of Messiah and His work. Furthermore, we do not keep the Torah to maintain His favour. The forgiveness of our sins is based upon the finished work of the Messiah. Messiah’s blood has atoned for all of our sins. There is nothing we can do to add to that.

I ask that those who criticize me about wanting to keep the commandments of Torah to kindly grow up a little bit. Thinking that a Believer has no responsibility to God’s commandments is simply a slippery slope that will just lead to apostasy. God has prepared good works for us to do and they are the commandments of the Torah:

For we are His workmanship, created in the Messiah Yeshua for good works, which God prepared beforehand so that we would walk in them. (Ephesians 2:10)

For this is the love of God, that we keep His commandments; and His commandments are not burdensome. (1 John 5:3)

It happened that while Yeshua was praying in a certain place, after He had finished, one of His disciples said to Him, “Master, teach us to pray just as Yochanan also taught his disciples.” (Luke 11:1)

Recently, I spent a great deal of time with a Pentecostal group. There were, of course, times when we would pray together and I was reminded of some things that I had thought about in the past in regards to prayer. What I’m about to address brings up many questions regarding the nature of God and what theologians call Christology. Christology is the study of the person of Christ, that is, the Messiah. I by no means think that I have even begun to truly understand the nature of God and the nature of the Messiah. No one fully understands the nature of God. To understand the nature of God would mean that you were on the same level as God. The reason why we don’t understand the nature of God is because we are the creation and He is the Creator. That being said, it is our duty to understand what the Bible says about the nature of God and respond to the truth accordingly.

What I want to address is the manner in which we are to pray, specifically if we should pray to Yeshua. Some Christians have never even questioned whether or not it’s appropriate to pray to Jesus. This would be because the doctrine of the Trinity clearly teaches that there are three persons that make up the one God. Jesus would be what they call “God, the Son,” and therefore it would be perfectly permissible to pray to Jesus as it would be to pray to the Father. In addition to this, I’ve noticed that even within the same prayer some will begin to pray to the Father and then speak as if they are speaking to Jesus. This seems odd to me because even though most Christians understand the three persons of the Trinity to be one, the actual doctrine of the Trinity teaches that the three are distinct persons. In other words, the average Christian might begin their prayer addressing the Father (“Father, thank you…”) but at some point in their prayer, they will speak as if they are speaking to Jesus (“when you were here on earth you died for our sins…”). Some even sporadically interchange the phrases “Lord God” and “Lord Jesus” (“Thank you Lord God, for all that you’ve done, O Lord Jesus, thank you for being with us.”)

It’s beyond the scope of this post to explain how I understand the nature of God and the Messiah. I reject the traditional understanding or at least the wording of the doctrine of the Trinity. The word “trinity” is not found in the Bible and neither is the concept that God is three persons. The traditional Trinitarian doctrines are not Biblical in the sense that they are not concepts directly taught in the Bible. Instead, the doctrine of the Trinity is simply man’s attempt at unravelling the mystery of the nature of God. I have taken the approach that many in the Messianic Torah movement have in regard to defining the nature of God; I only use Biblical language. For example, the Bible never explicitly states that Yeshua is God but it does say:

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God…And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth. (John 1:1, 14)

So, it is Biblical to say that I believe Yeshua is the Word of God in the form of a human being. When God’s Word became a human being, did God cease being the omnipresent God? No, of course not! The Apostle Paul says that Yeshua is the “image of the invisible God.” Is the image of something the actual thing itself? 

The Bible offers hardly any explanation in regards to God’s and Messiah’s ontological nature. Instead, the Bible describes God’s nature by using terms that describe what He has done and what He will do (“Creator,” “Healer,” “Ruler,” etc) and Yeshua is described by terms that describe who He is and what He has done (“Master,” “Saviour,” “Redeemer,” etc). One detail that we know for sure: God is spirit and cannot be seen (John 4:24, John 1:18). In a mysterious way, though, the Bible also states that God has appeared to people (Genesis 12:7, Exodus 24:10). Take for instance, the burning bush that appeared to Moses. The burning bush spoke as God and yet we know that the burning bush itself was not not God. Rather, it was an earthly expression of God’s voice. It was a way for God to interact with humanity. God interacting with humanity this way in no way diminishes the reality that God is omnipresent and transcends everything in our reality. He is the Creator and therefore is outside of all space, time and matter.

What does all of this have to do with the way we pray? It’s my opinion, and I could be wrong on this, but I don’t believe it’s appropriate to pray to Yeshua. This in no way diminishes the Apostolic teaching that He is the Word made flesh (John 1:14), the glory of God (2 Corinthians 4:6), the image of the unseen God (Colossians 1:15) and that the fullness of Deity dwells in Him in bodily form (Colossians 2:9). Rather, it’s to simply place things in their proper perspective. As much as the above quotations are true, the Apostles also teach that Yeshua is fully human. It says in 1 John:

“By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Yeshua the Messiah has come in the flesh is from God; and every spirit that does not confess Yeshua [came in the flesh] is not from God; this is the spirit of the anti-Christ…” (1 John 4:2-3)

And the epistle to the Hebrews says:

“He had to be made like His brethren in all things, so that He might become a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people. For since He Himself was tempted in that which He has suffered, He is able to come to the aid of those who are tempted.” (Hebrews 2:17-18)

There is no way to separate the man Yeshua from His divine attributes. What that means is that even if a Christian understands that they are not praying to Jesus as a man, they are praying to Him as God, they are still, in reality praying to a man.

In the Apostolic Scriptures, there is no instruction to pray to Yeshua. Instead, we have the teaching of Yeshua Himself on how to pray. He says:

“Pray, then, in this way: ’Our Father who is in heaven,” (Matthew 6:9)

It would be prudent for us to carefully choose our words when we pray. The Master would have us pray to His Father, not to Him. This does not deny or diminish the amazing reality that Yeshua is the Word made flesh. It will simply make our prayers more Biblical and that really should be the goal of all of our actions.

One of the most pervasive theologies in the Evangelical movement is that of Dispensation Theology. Dispensational Theology has become so ingrained in Christian thinking that most don’t even realize they believe in it. Essentially, Dispensation Theology can be broken down into the belief that God deals with different people in different eras in different ways. There are many flavours of Dispensation Theology but most would agree that the main line of demarcation between the dispensations is the cross of the Messiah. Previous to the cross, there was a different way of salvation and different expectations of obedience from God. Not only that, previous to cross, God viewed Israel as His people and, subsequent to the cross, God viewed the Church as His people.

Perhaps on the surface, this theological paradigm makes everything fit together but when put under scrutiny it betrays some major deficiencies. In the following survey of the different facets of this theology, I’m not going to hold back. The following views (which are in bold) are what dispensationalists believe once you strip off the theological jargon:

There are two ways of salvation.

No sincere Christian would actually intentionally confess this to be true but whether they know it or not most Christians believe this is true. For example, when a traditional Christian is confronted with the commandment of the Sabbath, sometimes the response is “well, we have Jesus, so we don’t need to keep the Sabbath.” What is this response implying? It’s implying that the people before the coming of the Messiah were not saved through His work on the cross. It implies that the people before the coming of Messiah kept the Sabbath and the rest of the Torah for their salvation. This is a serious and frightening implication! This perspective implies that God was able to save people apart from the sacrifice of the Messiah. If that’s true, then why did God send the Messiah to die? If there was something that man could have done to attain salvation, then Messiah died needlessly!

The truth is that faith in the Messiah has always been God’s way of salvation. The promise of the coming redeemer has been revealed since the beginning and God has always graciously chosen an elect in each generation to be saved. What this means is that the Torah was not given for salvation. The Torah instructs us on what is right and wrong and is our guide for holy living.

The Holy Spirit was not active in salvation previous to Acts 2.

No one who reads the Hebrew Scriptures can actually say that the Holy Spirit wasn’t active in the lives of God’s faithful. Since it is so evident, most Christians would say that while the Holy Spirit was active in the lives of people before the coming of Jesus, He didn’t come to “live inside” Believers until the day of Pentecost in Acts 2. This notion is consistent with the previous notion that people before the coming of Jesus were not saved by faith in Him. That being said, just as the notion that the people before the coming of Jesus were not saved in Him is false, so is the idea that the Spirit of God was not active in salvation previous to the day of Pentecost in Acts 2. Salvation is realized in the life of an individual only through the work of the Holy Spirit. 

It’s the Spirit of God that regenerates our heart and reveals our sinfulness. It’s the Spirit of God that reveals to us our need for the Saviour and leads us to the Messiah. It’s the Spirit of God that illuminates the Scriptures to us and enables us to obey His commandments. Without the work of the Spirit of God, no one would could be saved. So, that being said, all one has to do is examine the lives of the faithful before the coming of Jesus and see if they exhibit the characteristics of a regenerated individual. Did the faithful of the Hebrew Scriptures know their own sinfulness? Did they know they needed a saviour? Did they place their faith in God’s coming Redeemer? Did they know the Word of God and submit their lives to it? The obvious answer to all of the above is “yes!” The truth is that the Holy Spirit was active in the lives of the faithful before the coming of Jesus, both for salvation and for empowerment.

Israel and the Church are completely distinct.

This perspective is so prevalent in our thinking and especially in our interpretation of the Bible that it’s amazing that nowhere in the Bible is this notion stated. In other words, nowhere in the Bible is it ever stated that God has two separate groups of people that He calls His own. The problem with believing that Israel and the Church are distinct is that God has only made covenants with Israel. Israel is made up of the physical descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. God made a covenant with Abraham, later confirmed through Isaac and Jacob, where their descendants will forever be God’s people. The Mosaic covenant was added to give Israel instructions on how to obey God and to provide a litmus test through which God could either bless or punish Israel. The Davidic covenant promised a king that would forever reign over Israel. Finally, the New Covenant is an, as of yet, unfulfilled promise that He will change the hearts of the entire nation and make them obedient. There are no covenants made with an entity called “the Church.” 

Not only that, Jesus and the Apostles considered themselves to be faithful Jews within the larger scope of the people of Israel. The Apostles and the Apostolic community never abandoned the Jewish people and continued to practice Judaism as taught and lived out by Jesus. Additionally, Paul clearly teaches that Gentile Believers do not make up a new group of elect but rather join the faithful remnant of Israel through their faith in the Messiah.

The word “church” simply means “assembly” or “community.” So, while the word “ecclesia” is used many times in the writings of the Apostles, it should not necessarily be taken in a technical sense. Usually the word is used to simply refer to an assembly of Believers. Even when it appears to be used in a technical sense, it simply refers to the community of Believers who make up the faithful remnant of Israel. This means that the “church” is the faithful remnant of believing Jews within Israel and those Gentiles who, by faith, are joined to Israel, specifically that faithful remnant.

The New Covenant is something that started with the death of Jesus and doesn’t include the Torah.

In the Bible, the New Covenant is never defined as something that started with the coming of Jesus and doesn’t include the Torah. The New Covenant is defined in the Prophets, specifically in the book of Jeremiah. The New Covenant speaks of the time when the Messiah has returned and has gathered Israel to the Land. God will miraculously change the hearts of the entire nation which will result in that they will be obedient to the Torah. This obviously has not happened yet.

The reality of the New Covenant is simply what Christians know as salvation. In other words, the New Covenant is a national expression of what the faithful remnant of Israel has experienced in every generation. The main characteristic of the New Covenant is the change God makes in His people; forgiving them of their sins and enabling them to live in obedience to His commandments.

There exists something called an Old Covenant.

The term “old covenant” is found only once in the entire Bible. The term was invented by the Apostle Paul to describe the Torah when it is read by a Jewish person who does not have faith in the Messiah. The word “old,” when used in Paul’s epistles commonly refers to a person or state before faith. The “old self” refers to an individual’s state before coming to faith in the Messiah. The “old covenant” is the Torah read without faith while the reality of the New Covenant is the Torah written on the heart because of faith. The “old covenant” does not refer to the time before the coming of Jesus. The term “old covenant” refers to a participant of the Mosaic covenant (a Jewish person) who doesn’t have faith and won’t have a share in the coming New Covenant.

Paul is able to trump the Tanakh in terms of authority.

The response to Torah submissive Believers’ exhortation to other Believers that they should be keeping the Torah is usually “I know the Law says ‘that’ but didn’t Paul say we don’t have to?” In other words, according to this perspective, Paul is more authoritative than the Tanakh. Are Paul’s writings more authoritative than the Torah? Can a later revelation from God trump a previous revelation from God?

The reality is that a later revelation of God cannot contradict or trump an earlier revelation from God. This is why Christians do not accept the Book of Mormon or the Koran. If we really believe that the writings of the Apostles, specifically Paul, contradict the Torah then how are they any different from the Book of Mormon?

Paul constantly quotes the Tanakh to validate his arguments and teaching. Not only that, throughout Romans and various other places, Paul exhorts Believers to keep the commandments of God and teaches that those who walk by the Spirit will submit to the Torah of God. When reading Paul’s letters, we must work hard to find the context of his arguments and teachings so that we will be able to properly interpret his words. Paul does not contradict or teach against the Torah.

Only the New Testament applies to Believers.

Many Christians believe that only the commandments that are explicitly repeated in the New Testament apply to Christians. This implies that only the writings of the Apostles applies to Christians, whereas the Tanakh does not. This essentially means that Hebrew Scriptures, while at one time authoritative, no longer carries the same weight of authority as it once did.

Is this really treating the Hebrew Scriptures as the Word of God? If something comes from God, then doesn’t that mean it cannot change, since the speaker, God Himself, cannot change? Not only that, this perspective ignores the fact that the Jesus and the Apostolic communities of His followers did not have the New Testament. The Bible of the first century Believers was the Tanakh. The Scriptures to which Paul refers to as God-breathed was the Tanakh. The Tanakh was authoritative to Jesus, the Apostles and all of the Apostolic communities of the first century. Shouldn’t it be just as authoritative to us? 

Jesus and the Apostles began a new religion distinct from Judaism.

Ether Jesus and the Apostles indeed came to start a new religion called Christianity or they continued to practice Judaism and expected us to as well. If followers of Jesus are not a separate group of elect but are rather a part of the elect of Israel, shouldn’t we follow the religion that God expects Israel to keep?

The reality is that Jesus and the Apostles kept the Sabbath and Appointed Times of Leviticus. They prayed daily in the Temple and worshipped in the synagogues. They wore tassels and kept kosher. They considered themselves to be the elect sect with Israel. They practiced a reform of Second Temple Judaism. Shouldn’t we be practicing a modern form of that?

Conclusions

If virtually every aspect of Dispensation Theology is faulty, shouldn’t it be abandoned? There are no such thing as dispensations! God is the same yesterday, today and forever. Here are some truths:

• Salvation has always been a matter of God’s grace received by faith in the Messiah.
• The Holy Spirit has always been active in the work of salvation in God’s people.
• God’s people are still Israel and Gentile Believers, through faith in the Messiah, are made citizens in Israel.
• The New Covenant is a coming national reality expressed in each generation through Israel’s remnant.
• The Old Covenant refers to the Torah only when it is read by a person without faith.
• Revelation begins with and builds upon the Torah; later revelation cannot contradict the Torah.
• The whole Bible is equally authoritative for Believers.
• Jesus and the Apostles practiced a form of second Temple Judaism.

When it comes to Biblical issues and practices, sometimes emotion can blur the lines between what we experience and what’s actually in the Bible. Perhaps none more emotionally charged is the issue of “speaking in tongues.”

Firstly, let me point out that I grew up in a Pentecostal church. Growing up, I was proud to be Pentecostal. I was always intrigued with people speaking in tongues and being “slain in the Spirit.” When God radically changed me in the spring of 2004, I became even more zealous for all things Pentecostal. When I read 1 Corinthians 14, I did what most Pentecostals do, I assumed that the modern day “tongues” phenomenon was what was happening in Corinth. Within the paradigm of this interpretation, I eagerly desired to speak in tongues (as it would seem Paul indicated in 1 Corinthians 14:1). Within a couple of months, I began to speak in tongues. At first it was few “words” but it eventually developed into a couple of different patterns. I was completely sincere and I genuinely thought that the Holy Spirit was speaking through me.

Within the past couple of years, though, as I’ve begun to study the pertinent passages a little more deeply, I’ve stumbled upon a couple of things that makes this “tongues” experience inconsistent with the Bible. Let’s begin in Acts 2, and see if we can figure this out.

Acts 2:1-3

1When the day of Pentecost had come, they were all together in one place. 2And suddenly there came from heaven a noise like a violent rushing wind, and it filled the whole house where they were sitting.

Firstly, it’s generally assumed among Pentecostal interpreters that this event took place in the upper room described in Acts 1. This was probably not the case. According to verse 15, it was the third hour of the day (that is, roughly 9AM). It’s my contention that this event took place in theTemple precincts. Since this was the Feast of Weeks (Pentecost), it would seem logical that the disciples were gathered with the rest of Israel, at theTemple, for prayer during the morning sacrifice. This is why 3000 could be added to the Assembly of Believers (verse 41).

3And there appeared to them tongues as of fire distributing themselves, and they rested on each one of them. 4And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit was giving them utterance.

The “tongues as of fire” harkens back to the rabbinic legend that at the very first Pentecost, at Sinai when God gave the Ten Commandments, sparks rested on the Israelites and each spoke the commandments in the different languages of the world. Another thing we should note is that the word “tongues” is simply the old English way of saying “languages.” There’s really no reason to translate it as “tongues” other than to maintain the notion that the modern day “tongues” phenomenon is Biblical.

5Now there were Jews living in Jerusalem, devout men from every nation under heaven. 6And when this sound occurred, the crowd came together, and were bewildered because each one of them was hearing them speak in his own language.

Luke describes that there were devout Jews from all over the world gathered there. This is because Pentecost is one of the three pilgrimage festivals that the Torah requires all Israelite males to celebrate in Jerusalem. Notice that each heard the disciples speaking in their own language. While the disciples’ speaking in other languages was supernatural, the act of hearing and understanding these words by the crowd was not supernatural. Each person in the crowd was simply able to discern certain of the disciples speaking in their native language. (Actually, not everyone there was able to hear something in their native language but we’ll get to that in a moment).

7They were amazed and astonished, saying, “Why, are not all these who are speaking Galileans?  8″And how is it that we each hear them in our own language to which we were born  9″Parthians and Medes and Elamites, and residents of Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia, 10Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the districts of Libya around Cyrene, and visitors from Rome, both Jews and proselytes, 11Cretans and Arabs–we hear them in our own tongues speaking of the mighty deeds of God.”

The crowd was astonished because they knew that most of the disciples were Galileans and obviously could not have been speaking all of these different languages. Luke takes the time to describe all of the different languages being spoken (or at least the regions from which the languages came from). Each from these regions heard the disciples speaking “the mighty deeds of God” in their own language. So, let me reiterate, the disciples were empowered to speak real, human languages. There’s no indication that they were speaking anything but languages of the known world.

12And they all continued in amazement and great perplexity, saying to one another, “What does this mean?” 13But others were mocking and saying, “They are full of sweet wine.”

Notice the contrast of those in the crowds. Many were astonished and later came to faith in Yeshua as Messiah after Peter’s sermon. Others though, who obviously hadn’t heard anything in their own language, assumed the disciples were drunk. This contrast is important point to consider later when we take a look at 1 Corinthians 14.

Conclusions So Far

The disciples were supernaturally empowered to speak in languages they could not previously speak. All of the languages spoken were known languages, specifically known by the people in the crowd. Again, there were people present who could understand what was being said and the actual act of listening and understanding was completely natural. There’s no indication that the Believers were able to continue to speak in different languages after this point. It’s my opinion that this event was simply a sign to Israel that God had placed His power upon the disciples. Those that had faith, joined the disciples. Those didn’t have faith, scoffed and didn’t join the disciples. Additionally, notice that the ability to speak in different languages was not the motivating factor for the 3000 to place their faith in Yeshua, rather it was the sermon Peter presented, which he spoke in the common language. The ability to speak in different languages was merely the sign that intrigued and gathered the crowd.

Acts 10:44-48

44While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit fell upon all those who were listening to the message. 45All the circumcised (Jewish) believers who came with Peter were amazed, because the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out on the Gentiles also. 46For they were hearing them speaking with tongues and exalting God. Then Peter answered, 47″Surely no one can refuse the water for these to be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we did, can he ” 48And he ordered them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked him to stay on for a few days.

Apparently, a mini “Acts 2″ experience happened again in the home of Cornelius. This time, God supernaturally empowered these new Gentile Believers to speak in different languages. Whereas in Acts 2, the sign of speaking in different languages affected those outside of the Assembly of Believers, it would seem that this time the sign of speaking of different languages was sent for the Believers. In other words, God enabled the new Gentile Believers to speak in different languages to show the Jewish Believers that God had accepted them. There’s no indication of what kind of languages the new Gentile Believers were speaking. We must assume that, like in Acts 2, they were speaking in known languages and, specifically, languages that the disciples the Jewish Believers knew. For example, Cornelius and the rest of the new Gentile Believers probably spoke Greek but it’s possible God empowered them to speak fluent Hebrew and Aramaic, since these would be languages the Jewish Believers would have known.

Acts 19:5-6

5When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. 6And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they began speaking with tongues and prophesying.

Apparently, some disciples of John the Baptist did not make the pilgrimage to Jerusalem for Pentecost. (It’s possible that John and his disciples were a part of the Essene sect which specifically did not associate with anything Temple related as they felt the priesthood was corrupt). Nevertheless, Paul laid his hands and God yet again showed that His favour was upon those that believed in Yeshua as Messiah by empowering these new disciples of Yeshua to speak in different languages. Once again, we are given no indication of what kind of languages were spoken but if this event is to be taken as another mini “Acts 2″ experience, then that would mean they spoke languages that someone within hearing distance could understand.

Conclusions So Far

These are the only 3 instances in the book of Acts where “tongues” is even mentioned. It’s clear that the phenomenon that happened in Acts 2 was a supernatural experience where the disciples were enabled to speak in real but foreign (to them) languages. Those that had faith understood what was being spoken (depending on the language) and those didn’t have faith didn’t understand and scoffed at the event. A similar event happened two more times, apparently to serve the same purpose: that God was working among the followers of Yeshua. We are given no indication that the this phenomenon continued to happen (though it could have). Additionally, it would appear that people were only able to speak in different languages when God made it happened. It would appear that the disciples could not willfully “speak in tongues” as they pleased. Also, never did the disciples seek to speak in tongues, all 3 instances show that the phenomenon happens as God wills.

1 Corinthians 12:4-11

4Now there are varieties of gifts, but the same Spirit. 5And there are varieties of ministries, and the same Lord. 6There are varieties of effects, but the same God who works all things in all persons.  

I would say that it’s safe to assume that the upcoming list of gifts, ministries and effects is not exhaustive. Not only that, it’s my contention that these gifts, ministries and effects are not necessarily supernatural in every sense of the word. I will elaborate on that thought as we look at each gift.

7But to each one is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good.

These manifestations of the Spirit are for the common good. There may be personal benefit but the goal of the manifestations is for the group not the individual.

8For to one is given the word of wisdom through the Spirit, and to another the word of knowledge according to the same Spirit;

There is no reason to believe that Paul is only referring to receiving a “word of wisdom” and a “word of knowledge” in a spontaneous sort of way. In other words, Paul could simply be referring to people who, through study and experience, has been given the ability to have more wisdom and knowledge than others. As we’ll see, each of the gifts listed in this chapter can be supernatural gifts or natural gifts used by or for the Spirit.

9to another faith by the same Spirit, and to another gifts of healing by the one Spirit, 10and to another the effecting of miracles, and to another prophecy, and to another the distinguishing of spirits, to another various kinds of tongues, and to another the interpretation of tongues.

Faith, healing, miracles, prophecy, distinguishing of spirits, speaking in different languages and interpreting different languages can all be results of a supernatural and spontaneous working of the Spirit. That being said, each of these gifts could be things inherent in an individual that the Spirit simply uses or amplifies. Some people have a tendency to show more faith and some people are more knowledgeable in the area of what’s good for the body (that is, gifts of healing). Effecting of miracles would seem to weigh more on the supernatural side but there is a natural aspect to every miracle. Prophecy, as we’ll see in 1 Corinthians 14, is not always a spontaneous prediction of the future. Prophecy could simply refer to “a discourse emanating from divine inspiration and declaring the purposes of God…” Distinguishing of spirits does not completely rely on a spontaneous revelation from God but can certainly stem from simply knowing God’s Word and making appropriate distinctions. Speaking in different languages and interpreting languages can obviously be completely natural. It’s when a person speaks of the things of God that it becomes spiritual. Whether one is speaking in a foreign language or interpreting that language into the common language, if you are speaking of the things of God, then it becomes a spiritual gift.

11But one and the same Spirit works all these things, distributing to each one individually just as He wills.

God enables people in each of these areas as He wills. The above list is not exhaustive of the “gifts of the Spirit.” There is more to the life of the Believer within the assembly but this just what Paul, inspired by the Spirit, wrote in this epistle.

1 Corinthians 14

1Pursue love, yet desire earnestly spiritual gifts, but especially that you may prophesy. 2For one who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men but to God; for no one understands, but in his spirit he speaks mysteries.

“Prophecy” refers to clear exhortation in the language that all in the assembly understand. “Tongue” literally refers to “a language” but here specifically refers to a language that the majority does not understand. Speaking in a language that the majority does not understand is like blowing into the air. The word “spirit” is the Greek word “pneuma” and could also be translated as “breath.” Therefore, that line could be translated “in his breath he speaks mysteries.” That is, he speaks the mysteries of the word of God in a language the majority does not understand and therefore is no different than blowing into the air. So, if the person is speaking in a language no one understands, God does but the people don’t.

3But one who prophesies speaks to men for edification and exhortation and consolation. 4One who speaks in a tongue edifies himself; but one who prophesies edifies the church.

Paul, here, clearly defines prophecy as something that people understand and it’s for edification, exhortation and consolation. Speaking in a language that only the speaker understands can only edify the person speaking but speaking in a language everyone understands edifies the whole assembly.

5Now I wish that you all spoke in tongues, but even more that you would prophesy; and greater is one who prophesies than one who speaks in tongues, unless he interprets, so that the church may receive edifying.

Speaking in different languages (perhaps Hebrew is in view ) is not bad but it does not benefit a congregation that doesn’t speak in that language.

6But now, brethren, if I come to you speaking in tongues, what will I profit you unless I speak to you either by way of revelation or of knowledge or of prophecy or of teaching?

Speaking to someone in a language they don’t understand does not profit anything. Things like revelation, knowledge, prophecy and doctrine; all things relating to intelligently understanding something are things that profit.

7Yet even lifeless things, either flute or harp, in producing a sound, if they do not produce a distinction in the tones, how will it be known what is played on the flute or on the harp?  8For if the bugle produces an indistinct sound, who will prepare himself for battle  

Paul’s point is that sound needs to have meaning to be understood. Random noise doesn’t communicate a message.

9So also you, unless you utter by the tongue speech that is clear, how will it be known what is spoken?  For you will be speaking into the air.

Here Paul brings up the point that speaking in a language that no one understands is just like blowing into the air.

10There are, perhaps, a great many kinds of languages in the world, and no kind is without meaning. 11If then I do not know the meaning of the language, I will be to the one who speaks a barbarian, and the one who speaks will be a barbarian to me.

Paul compares the situation to barbarians speaking. Speaking to someone in a language they don’t understand doesn’t communicate any meaning to them; it might as well be a barbarian speaking.

12So also you, since you are zealous of spiritual gifts, seek to abound for the edification of the church. 13Therefore let one who speaks in a tongue pray that he may interpret.

It’s fine to be zealous for gifting that the Spirit can give you or strengthen but the goal should be to excel at edifying the assembly. If a person does speak in a language that most don’t understand, he should seek that God give them the ability to translate it to assembly. I believe this not only refers to translating the words themselves but the meaning of what he is saying. To put it another way: some people have the ability to speak in a different language but might not be able to convey to the assembly, by way of translation, the deep nuances and intricacies of the language they were speaking.

14For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays, but my mind is unfruitful.

Again, the word “spirit” here could simply be referring to “breath.” If Paul were to pray in the assembly in a language that nobody understands, he is legitimately praying, but the meaning of what he is saying will have been lost on the rest of the assembly. The stress is not what the individual praying is getting but rather what the assembly is getting. This is the context as he keeps on saying that praying in an unknown language doesn’t edify the assembly. A paraphrase of this verse would be: “if I pray in a language the majority of the assembly does not understand then physically speaking I’m praying but the assembly won’t be able to understand what I’m saying.”

15What is the outcome then?  I will pray with the spirit and I will pray with the mind also; I will sing with the spirit and I will sing with the mind also.

I always took this as him making a distinction between sprit and understanding but he’s actually saying that he will not only pray with his breath (that is, the physical act of speaking something) but breath and understanding at the same time. That’s a long way of saying “speaking in the language everybody understands.

16Otherwise if you bless in the spirit only, how will the one who fills the place of the ungifted say the “Amen” at your giving of thanks, since he does not know what you are saying? 

In the context of a synagogue prayer service, this makes a lot of sense. The prayers of the synagogue contain many points where an “amen” is required. If you are not praying in a language people will understand then no one will be able to say the “amen” when appropriate. To “bless in the spirit” is to bless in language the majority does not understand and so, to them, only the breath (“spirit”) is praying.

17For you are giving thanks well enough, but the other person is not edified.

The person praying the prayers is actually praying and is legitimately giving thanks but the others are not being edified because they cannot understand the language being used.

18I thank God, I speak in tongues more than you all; 19however, in the church I desire to speak five words with my mind so that I may instruct others also, rather than ten thousand words in a tongue.

Paul could speak in many languages (at least Hebrew and Greek) but he declared that he would rather speak in 5 words that people could understand than a zillion words that people could not understand. Notice how he says “my mind” but he’s referring to having other people understand.

20Brethren, do not be children in your thinking; yet in evil be infants, but in your thinking be mature. 21In the Law it is written, “BY MEN OF STRANGE TONGUES AND BY THE LIPS OF STRANGERS I WILL SPEAK TO THIS PEOPLE, AND EVEN SO THEY WILL NOT LISTEN TO ME,” says the Lord.

“In your thinking,” I believe, refers not to the person doing the thinking but the person doing the speaking. In other words, in the way we speak, we are not to be as children. We are to speak like intelligent men. He uses a quote from Isaiah 28:10-11 to teach that hearing and not understanding a foreign language is a sign of God’s judgment. For during the exile, the Israelites could not understand their captors.

22So then tongues are for a sign, not to those who believe but to unbelievers; but prophecy is for a sign, not to unbelievers but to those who believe.

Notice he says “are for a sign” and yet he’s making his point based on Isaiah 28’s use of real, human foreign languages. His point is that people speaking in different languages and not understanding is a sign that there is unbelief and God’s subsequent judgement. Speaking in the understood language (prophecy), on the other hand, is sign of belief and, hopefully, blessing.

23Therefore if the whole church assembles together and all speak in tongues, and ungifted men or unbelievers enter, will they not say that you are mad  24But if all prophesy, and an unbeliever or an ungifted man enters, he is convicted by all, he is called to account by all; 25the secrets of his heart are disclosed; and so he will fall on his face and worship God, declaring that God is certainly among you.

To understand verses 23-25 we can use the event that took place on Pentecost in Acts 2. Those who did not understand what was going on (that is, didn’t understand anything in their own language), were the unbelievers. They scoffed at what was going on, even though the disciples were indeed speaking the truth (albeit in a bunch of different languages). On the other hand, those that understood (and to them that would have been equivalent to prophecy) were the ones who believed.

26What is the outcome then, brethren?  When you assemble, each one has a psalm, has a teaching, has a revelation, has a tongue, has an interpretation; let all things be done for edification.

This is actually a rebuke of how the Corinthians were conducting their services. Paul now gives his instructions on how he would want the services to be conducted.

27If anyone speaks in a tongue, it should be by two or at the most three, and each in turn, and one must interpret; 28but if there is no interpreter, he must keep silent in the church; and let him speak to himself and to God.

If one wishes to speak in a different language in the assembly, Paul limits the amount of people doing this to 3. This is tricky to understand because why would people want to speak in a different language in the assembly  My best guess is that these are Jewish believers who wanted to conduct some of the service in Hebrew. If there was no one to interpret the meaning of what the speaker is saying then speaking in a different language should not be done.

29Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others pass judgment. 30But if a revelation is made to another who is seated, the first one must keep silent. 31For you can all prophesy one by one, so that all may learn and all may be exhorted; 32and the spirits of prophets are subject to prophets;

The teaching is to be done also by only 2 or 3. What is taught is to be judged and scrutinized. Additionally, there is to be order and control in the assembly.

33for God is not a God of confusion but of peace, as in all the churches of the saints.

Speaking in different languages with no one understanding does not come from God. God is not the author of confusion as Paul clearly states.

Conclusions

In the book of Acts, there are 3 instances recorded where God supernaturally empowered disciples of Yeshua to speak in foreign languages. The Acts 2 account explicitly shows that the languages spoken were real, human languages. Both subsequent occurrences (in Acts 10 and 19) are simply described as “speaking in tongues” and therefore the argument from silence would indicate that theses occurrences were also real, human languages. There is also no indication by Luke that this event continued to happen or was something that was “practiced” by the Believers.

The mention of “tongues” in 1 Corinthians 12 could simply be referring to speaking in different languages and the interpretation of those languages. Similarly, the “tongues” spoken of throughout 1 Corinthians 14 seem to simply be referring to people within an assembly speaking the word of God in a language foreign to the majority. This is contrasted with “prophecy” which seems to be referring to the the proclamation of the word of God, either through teaching or prayer, in the commonly understood language.

The modern day “tongues” phenomenon, as I have seen and personally experienced, is usually a “language” being spoken which no one can understood, including the speaker. I would characterize the modern day “tongues” phenomenon as, at “best,” extra-biblical and, at worst, unbiblical. Each instance of “tongues” in the Bible either explicitly or implicitly refers to real, human languages with at least one person understanding what was spoken. When a person speaks in modern “tongues” it is usually nothing more than giberish and rarely conveys any sense of syntax. This would place the practice of modern “tongues” as extra-biblical.

Additionally, there is no way to test what is spoken when somebody “speaks in tongues.” If neither the speaker nor the listener know what is being said, then how will anyone know if what is being spoken is from God or not? Paul says in 1 Corinthians 12:3 that “no one speaking by the Spirit of God says, “Yeshua is accursed”; and no one can say, “Yeshua is Master,” except by the Holy Spirit.” but if no one understands what is being said how can one discern if it’s from the Spirit of God or not? More often than not, modern “tongues” is simply something that the speaker has been psychologically trained to do but there is the possibility of demonic activity. Since there is no way to know what is being spoken, then how do we know whether one is blessing or cursing God?

It is my opinion, based upon the pertinent texts studied above that Believers engaging in the modern “tongues” phenomenon should stop this practice. Even if one believes that the “tongues” being spoken today could be a real, human language, unless someone is present in the assembly to understand, it should not be spoken. At the very least, Paul’s instruction that, at the most, only 3 speak in a different language and one after the other. If there is no one present who actually understands the language, then the “tongues” speakers should not continue to speak.

Growing up in the Pentecostal movement and now having a Torah-based perspective has left me wondering how it was that I could have misinterpreted the Bible. There are many things that I wasn’t taking into account but I’d say the main interpretative mistake I was making was having the “New Testament” be more authoritative than the rest of the Bible. Simply speaking, taking the Torah seriously and literally was not even a thought that entered into my head as I interpreted the Bible.

The dispensational paradigm I was studying within didn’t allow me to simply accept the whole of God’s Word as authoritative. If the Torah said “keep the Sabbath,” I had to filter that through what I thought the New Testament had to say about the issue. It wasn’t enough that God Himself simply commands the Sabbath to be kept in a specific way; I had to find the “deeper meaning.”

Additionally, I didn’t really seek to find the historical and cultural context of the Gospels and Epistles. So, not only was I interpreting the Torah through the New Testament, I was interpreting the New Testament as if it was written by modern day Evangelical Christians.

The fact that there are explicit examples of Yeshua, Paul and the Apostles keeping the seventh-day Sabbath and participating in the Temple/Synagogue model of worship didn’t even make a dent in my thinking process in regards to my own life.

Too often, we as Believers, have tried to make the Bible fit our lives. It’s time to make our lives fit the Bible!